transmission analysis: wind integration study: maine and ... · wind projects have a lower output...

In its June 29, 2016 Comments to LUPC (“ISO Comments”), ISO-New England (ISO-NE) identifies constraints that exist in the Maine transmission system and the need for upgrades to accommodate new generation. Although constraints exist, there are a number of reasons why the existing transmission system should be able to accommodate the Bryant Mountain project.1 The map included as Exhibit A identifies Maine’s major interfaces and the key constraint areas identified by ISO-NE in its comments. This map was included in a December 18, 2014 report that ISO New England presented to the ISO-NE Planning Advisory Committee, Strategic Transmission Analysis: Wind Integration Study: Maine and Northern Vermont Updates (“2014 ISO Study”). The key interfaces are the Orrington-South interface in northern Maine, the Surowiec-South interface in southern Maine, and the Maine-New Hampshire interface at the Maine and New Hampshire border. They are depicted by the green-dashed lines on Exhibit A. There are several more localized constraint areas, shown in purple dashed lines on Exhibit A. They include the Keene Road, Wyman Hydro, and Rumford export areas. The most constrained area is north of the Orrington-South interface and, in particular, north of Keene Road. ISO-NE notes in its comments that the major constraint that affects new wind generation is located in northern Maine. (ISO Comments at pp. 2-3.)

The northern Maine constraint identified by ISO-NE does not affect the Bryant Mountain project, which is located south of Rumford and therefore is not affected by the constraints in the system to the north.

The Bryant Mountain project is subject to the Surowiec-South and Maine-New Hampshire interfaces and constraints that might exist in those locations but, as discussed below, ISO-NE has studied those constraints and the impact they might have on wind generation and concluded they are minimal. In the March 28, 2016 report by ISO-NE and presented to the ISO-NE Planning Advisory Committee Meeting, 2015 Economic Study Strategic Transmission Analysis – Onshore Wind Integration Draft Results (“ISO Economic Study”), it was determined that Maine Interface Upgrades would produce: “Little to no savings: Infrequent interface constraints and small amounts of bottled-in energy.”2 Meaning that because wind generation is not constrained for significant amounts of time, there would be minimal economic benefit to 1 As discussed in my initial June 29, 2016 Letter that was Exhibit B to EverPower’s pre-filed testimony, the project will undergo a multi-year system impact study at ISO-NE that will identify any specific upgrades required as part of the project interconnecting with the electrical grid. The costs of those upgrades will be paid for by the generator.

2 A complete copy of the ISO Economic Study is included as Exhibit C. This reference is on slide 14 associated with dispatch scenarios 1,2,3 and 4, which are existing generation plus generation north of Suroweic interface 453, 623, 857, 1149MW.

EverPower Bryant Permitting comments RE ISO comments August 8, 2016 of 3

implementing upgrades to reduce or eliminate those constraints. Further, upgrades associated with projects as required by ISO-NE studies actually often increase transmission capacity and reduce congestion on the system.

When ISO-NE discusses capacity of the existing transmission system, typically it is evaluating the ability of the system to operate during periods of peak demand. Wind resources typically do not operate at maximum capacity during periods of peak demand. For example, wind projects have a lower output during the summer, when demand in New England peaks. Therefore, the potential constraints identified by ISO-NE, which occur during periods of peak demand, typically do not limit operation of wind power projects. This is evident in Exhibit B, which includes several slides from the ISO Economic Study. Slide 61 depicts flows across the Maine-New Hampshire interface and shows that during 2015 that interface was not constrained for wind or any other resources. Similarly, Slide 53 depicts flows across the Surowiec-South interface and shows that during 2015 that interface was not constrained for wind or other resources. It is possible those interfaces could be constrained during periods of higher demand not experienced in 2015, and ISO-NE specifically evaluated the potential for constraints at those interfaces under several hypothetical scenarios. The ISO Economic Study evaluated several scenarios, including a scenario in which all of the wind that was in the ISO-NE queue as of April 1, 2015 (identified as Scenario 6 on Slide 8 of Exhibit B, and which includes approximately 3,727 MW of wind power in addition to the 453 MW of wind power that was then in service in Maine) was operating. Under this scenario, there would be significant constraints at the Orrington-South interface, but no constraints at the Maine-New Hampshire interface, and minimal constraints at the Surowiec South interface. Exhibit B Slide 15. This study takes into account the variable nature of wind generation and aligns it with load as well as price signals which encourage other generators to operate, and as such it provides a more complete picture of the impact that existing transmission constraints might have on operation of existing and new wind resources.

In short, although there are constraints in the existing system, the Bryant Mountain project is not located in the areas of most significant constraints. Additionally, the constraints do not significantly affect wind resources, which do not operate during periods of time of maximum constraint in the system.

It has also been noted that there is a significant volume of wind generation proposed in the ISO-NE generation interconnection queue. Not all projects in the interconnection queue proceed to the next phase of study or are ever built. For example,3 since 1996, less than 5,000 MW out of a total of 65,000 MW of proposed interconnections (including Elective Transmission Upgrades, which may only be elimination of congestion bottle necks vs. actual new generation) proceeded to the stage of filing an Interconnection Application. (The information from 1996- 3 Based on the ISO New England Generator Interconnection Queue as of 7/28/2016

EverPower Bryant Permitting comments RE ISO comments August 8, 2016 of 3

2004 is limited and it is likely the number of proposed interconnections is even higher.) In recent months, there have been a number of market signals (for example, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut have issued a joint request for clean energy and transmission to deliver that clean energy) that have promoted competing applications of renewable generation into the ISO-NE queue, much of which will never come to completion. As reflected in the ISO Comments, the majority of proposed wind development in Maine is in northern Maine, Aroostook County. (ISO Comments at 3.) There is only minimal new generation proposed in Oxford County (63 MW, which includes the 40 MW Bryant Mountain project).

Jeffrey H Fenn P.E. Director Electrical Engineering

D E C E M B E R 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 | W E S T B O R O U G H , M A

Planning Advisory Committee

Strategic Transmission Analysis: Wind Integration Study: Maine and Northern Vermont Updates

Stan Doe

M A N A G E R , T R A N S M I S S I O N S T R A T E G Y

Maine’s Major Interfaces and Relationship to Wind Resources

11

ISO-NE INTERNAL

M A R C H 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 | W E S T B O R O U G H , M A

Jessica Lau and Wayne Coste S Y S T E M P L A N N I N G

Planning Advisory Committee Meeting

2015 Economic Study Strategic Transmission Analysis – Onshore Wind Integration Draft Results

ISO-NE INTERNAL

61

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) Maine – New Hampshire (1,900 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

53

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) Surowiec South (1,500 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

8

Wind Scenarios New England Wind Nameplate (MW)

Wind Nameplate (MW)

Scenarios Maine Outside of

Maine New England

Total

1 Existing Wind in New England (In-Service as of 4/1/15) *

453 426 878

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 623 426 1,049

3 Proposed Wind in New England with I.3.9 approval (as of 4/1/15)

857 489 1,345

4 RENEW Basecase – STA-WI Studied Wind (as of 10/1/13) *

1,149 426 1,575

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 2,084 426 2,510

5NB

RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for dispatch

2,084 426 2,510

6 All Future Queue Wind in New England (as of 4/1/15)

3,727 678 4,405

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding *Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Percent of Time Interface is at Limit (% of Year) Orrington South is the most limited and leads to minimal congestion at Surowiec South and ME-NH

15

Scenarios

Orrington South Export Limit

Surowiec South Export Limit

ME-NH Export Limit

Pre-Upgrades

(1,325 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(1,650 MW)

Pre-Upgrades

(1,500 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(2,100 MW)

Pre-Upgrades

(1,900 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(2,300 MW)


1 0 0 0 0 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 6 0 0 0 0 0


8 0 1 0 0 0


13 0 4 0 0 0

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 43 19 11 0 0 0

5NB RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)*

and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for dispatch

83 57 12 0 0 0


69 52 11 0 0 0

*Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15

ISO-NE INTERNAL

M A R C H 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 | W E S T B O R O U G H , M A

Jessica Lau and Wayne Coste S Y S T E M P L A N N I N G

Planning Advisory Committee Meeting

2015 Economic Study Strategic Transmission Analysis – Onshore Wind Integration Draft Results

ISO-NE INTERNAL

2

Outline

• Overview

• Background and Assumptions

• Study Results

• Appendix I. Scenarios II. Generation by Resource Type Metrics III. Air Emissions Metrics IV. Bottled-In Energy Metrics V. Interface Flow Metrics VI. LMP Metrics VII. Modeling Assumptions

ISO-NE INTERNAL

3

Overview

• The ISO is performing three 2015 Economic Studies – Keene Road area wind development and analysis of local interface constraints

(request by SunEdison) – Offshore Wind Deployment (request by Massachusetts Clean Energy Center) – Maine Upgrades Identified in ISO-NE’s Strategic Transmission Analysis for Wind

Integration – Onshore Wind (request by RENEW Northeast)

• Today the ISO is seeking PAC input on the draft results of the Strategic Transmission Analysis – Onshore Wind – Estimate extent that transmission constraints are binding – Measure the economic benefits of relieving those transmission system constraints

• This analysis includes future resources in some scenarios, but may not account for all the necessary transmission facilities associated with the interconnection of the resource – All future constraints may not be captured in this analysis

• Final study results and report will be completed after consultation with the PAC – The results may be used to inform the region on the needs for future transmission

upgrades in the Maine area

ISO-NE INTERNAL

4

Background

• The Onshore Wind – Strategic Transmission Analysis scope of work and assumptions were developed with PAC input at the May and June 2015 meetings – Scope of Work – Study Assumptions – Stakeholder Comments on Scope of Work

http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/06/a9_2015_economic_studies_on_shore_wind_integration_scope_of_work_revised_draft.pdf

http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/06/a9_2015_economic_studies_assumptions_scope_of_work_revised_draft.pdf

http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/06/a9_2015_economic_studies_assumptions_scope_of_work_revised_draft.pdf

http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/06/a9_2015_economic_studies_scope_of_work_stakeholder_comments.pdf

ISO-NE INTERNAL

5

Background Strategic Transmission Analysis

• ISO-NE conducted the Strategic Transmission Analysis for Wind Integration (STA-WI)

• Designed to understand transmission constraints in Maine affecting wind resources in northern New England

• Focused on potential upgrades that would not require major new transmission construction

2012-2014

• ISO-NE will conduct an updated Strategic Transmission Analysis for Maine as discussed in 3/28/2016 PAC agenda item 2.0

• The Maine transmission topology has changed

• Some upgrades identified in the previous study have been implemented

• Some upgrades are no longer appropriate for current system

2016

ISO-NE INTERNAL

6

Background 2015 Economic Study of Strategic Transmission Analysis – Onshore Wind

Study Objective: Evaluate the impact of increasing transfer capability along the Maine corridor

– The effect of increasing transfer limits of major ME interfaces • Were identified in the Strategic Transmission Analysis – Wind Integration • Higher ME interface limits are not directly attributable to specific

transmission upgrades

– Pre-contingency thermal limits are respected in the Gridview software • Operation of wind resources can be constrained by local thermal limits

– Other local constraints are not modeled • Local, voltage and stability constraints

– E.g. Keene Road, Wyman and Rumford areas

• Could constrain the operation of impacted resources

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Surowiec South Interface

Orrington South Interface

7

Key Study Assumptions Study Year 2021

• System Characteristics – 2015 CELT loads, EE & PV Forecast – FCA #9 resources with a Capacity Supply

Obligation (CSO) and 2015 CELT resources without a CSO

– NREL wind hourly profiles – Hourly imports and exports available for dispatch – 2015 EIA Annual Energy Outlook Fuel Forecast

New Brunswick Interconnections

ME Interface Export Limit

Pre-Upgrades Cases (MW)

Post-Upgrades Cases (MW)

Keene Road, Wyman, Rumford

Unconstrained Unconstrained

Orrington South 1,325 1,650

Surowiec South 1,500 2,100

Maine – New Hampshire

1,900 2,300

Maine – New Hampshire Interface

ISO-NE INTERNAL

8

Wind Scenarios New England Wind Nameplate (MW)

Wind Nameplate (MW)

Scenarios Maine Outside of

Maine New England

Total


453 426 878

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 623 426 1,049


857 489 1,345


1,149 426 1,575

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 2,084 426 2,510

5NB


2,084 426 2,510


3,727 678 4,405


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Maine – New Hampshire Interface

Wind Scenarios Maine Wind Nameplate (MW)

9

1

181

271

0

6

2,829

898

0

4

334

815

0

5NB

1,185

899

0

5

1,185

899

0

2

181

442

0

3

230

626

0

Slides 25-27 detail each wind asset and nameplate capacity by scenario

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding

Orrington South Interface

Surowiec South Interface

Total: 453 Total: 623 Total: 857 Total: 1,149

Total: 3,727 Total: 2,084 Total: 2,084

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

DRAFT STUDY RESULTS

10

ISO-NE INTERNAL

11

Summary of Draft Results Study Year 2021

• For 453 MW to 1,149 MW of total wind integration in Maine – $0M to $5M production cost savings due to increasing Maine corridor interfaces – Orrington South interface becomes more constrained as more wind resources are

added

• With 2,084 MW to 3,727 MW of total wind integration in Maine – $31M to $75M production cost savings result from increasing the Maine interface

transfer limit constraints – Orrington South interface is the major constraint

• Most wind resources are located north of Orrington South • Affects the ability to transport economically dispatched resources to South of Orrington

(including New Brunswick imports) – Relieving the Maine corridor results in the North-South interface becoming

increasingly constrained

• Reminder that the above calculations are associated only with the changes in transfer capabilities on the major interfaces – Bottled-in energy was observed due to both interface and local thermal constraints – Study does not reflect influence of future interconnections on local system

constraints

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Production Cost Savings due to ME Interface Upgrades ($M/Year)

12

Scenarios

Production Cost Production Cost

Savings Case Shows Pre-

Upgrades Post-

Upgrades


3,668 3,667 0 Little to no savings: Infrequent interface constraints and small amounts of bottled-in energy When > 2,084 MW of Maine Wind: Production cost savings are realized from relaxing interfaces and releasing bottled-in energy

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 3,639 3,638 1


3,593 3,592 1


3,563 3,559 5

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 3,458 3,427 31

5NB RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for dispatch

3,338 3,261 78

6 All Future Queue Wind in New England (as of 4/1/15) 3,351 3,276 75


ISO-NE INTERNAL

13

Production Cost Savings ($M/Year) vs. New England Wind Nameplate (MW)

878 MW, $0M

1,049 MW, $1M

1,345 MW, $1M

1,575 MW, $5M

2,510 MW, $31M

4,405 MW, $75M

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Pro

du

ctio

n C

ost

Sav

ings

($

M)

ME Wind Nameplate (MW)

Note: New Brunswick sensitivity (1,000 MW of NB imports available for dispatch) is excluded in this graph

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Scenarios

LSE Expense LSE Expense Savings

Cases Shows Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades


7,246 7,245 1 Little to no savings: Infrequent interface constraints and small amounts of bottled-in energy When > 2,084 MW of Maine Wind: LSE expense savings are realized from relaxing interfaces and releasing bottled-in energy

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 7,217 7,215 1


7,178 7,177 1


7,167 7,165 2

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 7,093 7,054 39


7,002 6,922 80

6 All Future Queue Wind in New England (as of 4/1/15) 6,959 6,883 76

Load Serving Entity (LSE) Expense Savings due to ME Interface Upgrades ($M/Year)

14


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Percent of Time Interface is at Limit (% of Year) Orrington South is the most limited and leads to minimal congestion at Surowiec South and ME-NH

15

Scenarios

Orrington South Export Limit

Surowiec South Export Limit

ME-NH Export Limit

Pre-Upgrades

(1,325 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(1,650 MW)

Pre-Upgrades

(1,500 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(2,100 MW)

Pre-Upgrades

(1,900 MW)

Post-Upgrades

(2,300 MW)


1 0 0 0 0 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 6 0 0 0 0 0


8 0 1 0 0 0


13 0 4 0 0 0

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 43 19 11 0 0 0

5NB RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)*

and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for dispatch

83 57 12 0 0 0


69 52 11 0 0 0


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Percent of Time Interface is at Limit (% of Year), Cont. North – South Interface

16

Scenarios

North-South Export Limit (2,675 MW)

Pre-Upgrade

Post-Upgrade


0 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 1 1


2 2


2 3

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 3 9


4 13


6 17


When there is >2,084 MW of wind nameplate in Maine, the North-South interface begins to experience more congestion

North – South Interface

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Maine Bottled-In Energy (GWh) Operation of some wind resources were constrained by local thermal limits.

This cannot be relieved by increasing Maine corridor transfer capability.

17

Scenarios Wind

($0 Threshold Price) Hydro

($5 Threshold Price) NB Import

($10 Threshold Price)

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

1 14 14 0 0 0 0

2 14 14 0 0 9 0

3 15 15 0 0 19 0

4 92 91 0 0 57 0

5 97 92 17 12 702 194

5NB 92 89 13 12 2,435 1,028

6 1,641 941 362 270 2,174 1,560


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Maine Bottled-In Energy (GWh) Pre-Upgrades (approximately represented by shape size in subarea)

18

1

6

4

5NB 5

2 3

Wind

Hydro

NB Import

Scale 100 GWh

1,000 GWh

ISO-NE INTERNAL

CO2 Systemwide Reductions due to ME Interface Upgrades (kton**) Changes (%) in CO2 emissions are small relative to systemwide emissions of 32,000 kton/year

19

Scenarios CO2 Reduction Cases Show

kton (%) Overall, as wind penetration increases,

there is more CO2 reduction due to Maine

interface upgrades.

Negative CO2 reduction occurs in cases 2 and 3 due to change in unit

commitment after Maine interface

upgrades. The system conducts least-cost

dispatch and not least-emission dispatch. ($20

CO2 cost is taken into account)


1 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * -3 0


-7 0


3 0

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 216 1

5NB RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* and 1,000 MW of of NB imports available for dispatch

618 2


701 2

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding *Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15 **1 kton = 1,000 short ton = 2,000,000 lb

ISO-NE INTERNAL

20

2015 Economic Study: Next Steps

• Review stakeholder comments and continue stakeholder discussions at future PAC meetings

• Develop report summarizing the Onshore Wind – Strategic Transmission Analysis Study

ISO-NE INTERNAL

21

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDICES I – Scenarios

II – Generation by Resource Type Metrics

III – Air Emissions Metrics

IV – Bottled-In Energy Metrics

V – Interface Flow Metrics

VI – LMP Metrics

VII – Modeling Assumptions

22

ISO-NE INTERNAL ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX I Scenarios

23

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Case Names

Scenarios

Pre-Upgrades Post-Upgrades


Pre-E Post-E

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * Pre-Less Post-Less


Pre-P Post-P


Pre-Base Post-Base

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* Pre-More Post-More

5NB

RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* and 1,000 MW of of NB imports available for dispatch

Pre-More-NB Post-More-NB


Pre-F Post-F

24

Table of Scenarios Cases


ISO-NE INTERNAL

25

Wind Units by Scenario and Subarea (1/3) BHE (MW)

Area Name

1 Existing Wind in

New England (In-service

4/1/15)

2 RENEW

Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind)

3 Proposed Wind in New England with I.3.9 (as of

4/1/15)

4 RENEW

Basecase - STA-WI Studied Wind (as of

10/1/13)

5 RENEW

Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)

5NB Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)

and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for

dispatch

6 All Queue Wind in New England (as of 4/1/15)

BHE QP357_Passadumkeag Windpark 0.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

BHE QP476_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.8 52.8 52.8 52.8

BHE Rollins Wind Plant 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8

BHE Stetson II Wind Farm 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3

BHE Stetson Wind Farm 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.7

BHE Bull Hill Wind 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5

BHE QP349_Pisgah Mountain 0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1

BHE QP397_Hancock Wind Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0

BHE QP400_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0

BHE QP403_Pisgah Mountain Increase (see QP249) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

BHE QP417_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 250.0 250.0

BHE QP420_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 72.6

BHE QP435_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 111.0

BHE QP458_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

BHE QP459_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

BHE QP460_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

BHE QP461_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

BHE QP462_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.0

BHE QP470_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.6 600.6 600.6

BHE QP471_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600.6

BHE QP486_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0

BHE Total 181.3 181.3 230.3 334.1 1184.7 1184.7 2829.0

ISO-NE INTERNAL

26

Wind Units by Scenario and Subarea (2/3) ME (MW)

Area Name

1 Existing Wind in


4/1/15)

2 RENEW



4/1/15)

4 RENEW

Basecase - STA-WI Studied Wind (as of

10/1/13)

5 RENEW


5NB Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)

and 1,000 MW of NB imports available for

dispatch


ME GMCW 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5

ME Kibby Wind Power 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6 149.6

ME QP272_Oakfield II Wind – Keene Road 0.0 147.6 147.6 147.6 147.6 147.6 147.6

ME Saddleback Ridge Wind 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2

ME Spruce Mountain Wind 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

ME QP300_Canton Mountain Winds 0.0 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8

ME QP333_Bingham Wind 0.0 0.0 184.8 184.8 184.8 184.8 184.8

ME QP350-1_Wind (Withdrawn as of 4/1/15) 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.0 92.0 92.0 0.0

ME QP350-2_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 96.9 96.9 96.9

ME QP393_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0 84.0 84.0

ME QP406_Canton Increase and CNR (see QP300) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

ME QP407_Saddleback Increase and CNR (see QP287) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

ME QP452_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.8

ME Record Hill Wind 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6 50.6

ME WND_MISC_ME 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

ME Total 271.2 441.6 626.4 815.3 899.3 899.3 897.9

ISO-NE INTERNAL

27

Wind Units by Scenario and Subarea (3/3) BST, CMA/NEMA, NH, RI, SEMA, VT, WMA (MW)

Area Name

1 Existing Wind in


4/1/15)

2 RENEW



4/1/15)

4 RENEW Basecase -

STA-WI Studied Wind (as of

10/1/13)

5 RENEW


5NB Sensitivity 2 (More

Wind) and 1,000 MW of NB imports

available for dispatch


BST WND_MISC_BST 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2

CMA NEMA WND_MISC_CMANEMA 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

CMA NEMA Princeton Wind Farm Project 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

NH Lempster Wind 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3

NH Granite Reliable Power 120.2 120.2 120.2 120.2 120.2 120.2 120.2

NH QP415_Jericho Wind 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1

NH Groton Wind Project 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5 50.5

NH QP390_Wind 0.0 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.8

NH QP543_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4

RI WND_MISC_RI 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2

SEMA WND_MISC_SEMA 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9

VT Sheffield Wind Farm 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0

VT Searsburg Wind 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

VT Kingdom Community Wind 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.5 81.5

VT QP532_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9

VT QP536_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

VT QP488_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9

WMA QP396_Berkshire Wind Increase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8

WMA QP539_CNR Only 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7

WMA QP477_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0

WMA QP535_Wind 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

WMA Berkshire East Wind 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7

WMA WND_MISC_WMA 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8

Outside Maine Total 425.6 425.6 488.5 425.6 425.6 425.6 678.4

ISO-NE INTERNAL

28

Maine Interface Upgrades

• Conceptual transmission upgrades – Used upgraded interface limits identified in the 2012-2014 Strategic

Transmission Analysis – Wind Integration – Specific upgrades to accomplish changes are not defined

• Maine stability / voltage interface limit increases – Orrington-South

• 2021 limit is 1,325 MW • 2021 plus upgrades limit is 1,650 MW

– Surowiec-South • 2021 limit is 1,500 MW • 2021 plus upgrades limit is 2,100 MW

– ME-NH • 2021 limit is 1,900 MW • 2021 plus upgrades limit is 2,300 MW

ISO-NE INTERNAL

• Cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 – Daily diurnal curves – Historical monthly maximum imports for 2013-2014

• Sensitivity case (5NB) evaluate the impact of additional New Brunswick imports – Assumed 1,000 MW of available imports for dispatch ($10/MWh

threshold price)

29

Scenario Specific New Brunswick Imports

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX II

Generation by Resource Type Metrics

30

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Maine Generation (GWh)

31

Scenarios

Wind ($0 Threshold Price)

Hydro ($5 Threshold Price)

NB Import ($10 Threshold Price)

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

1 1,454 1,454 2,060 2,060 4,592 4,592

2 2,025 2,025 2,060 2,060 4,582 4,592

3 2,793 2,793 2,060 2,060 4,573 4,592

4 3,634 3,635 2,060 2,060 4,535 4,592

5 6,615 6,620 2,042 2,047 3,889 4,398

5NB 6,620 6,623 2,046 2,047 6,325 7,732

6 10,058 10,758 1,698 1,790 2,418 3,032


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Maine Generation (GWh) Pre-Upgrades (approximately represented by shape size in subarea)

32

1

6

4

5NB 5

2 3

Wind

Hydro

NB Import

Scale 100 GWh

1,000 GWh

ISO-NE INTERNAL

33

Annual Generation by Resource Type Graph

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

An

nu

al G

en

era

tio

n (

GW

h)

Coal

Oil

Wind

Gas

Ties

Solar

Hydro

Nuclear

Other Renewables

EE, DR, RTEG

ISO-NE INTERNAL

34

Annual Generation by Resource Type (GWH) Table

Cases Resource Type

EE, DR, RTEG Other

Renewables Nuclear Hydro Solar Ties Gas Wind Oil Coal

Pre-1 (Pre-E) 14,238 5,307 29,754 6,631 2,990 20,371 66,852 2,735 405 938

Post-1 (Post-E) 14,238 5,308 29,754 6,631 2,990 20,371 66,853 2,735 403 938

Pre-2 (Pre-Less) 14,238 5,279 29,754 6,625 2,990 20,362 66,325 3,324 405 919

Post-2 (Post-Less) 14,238 5,289 29,754 6,626 2,990 20,371 66,309 3,324 402 919

Pre-3 (Pre-P) 14,238 5,242 29,754 6,614 2,990 20,344 65,438 4,264 403 936

Post-3 (Post-P) 14,238 5,256 29,754 6,615 2,990 20,363 65,401 4,264 405 935

Pre-4 (Pre-Base) 14,238 5,179 29,754 6,611 2,990 20,308 64,951 4,933 407 850

Post-4 (Post-Base) 14,238 5,199 29,754 6,609 2,990 20,364 64,874 4,934 402 858

Pre-5 (Pre-More) 14,238 5,041 29,754 6,572 2,990 19,664 62,806 7,914 400 840

Post-5 (Post-More) 14,238 5,079 29,754 6,550 2,990 20,167 62,350 7,920 386 786

Pre-5NB (Pre-More-NB) 14,238 4,844 29,754 6,563 2,990 22,100 60,570 7,920 400 842

Post-5NB (Post-More-NB) 14,238 4,889 29,754 6,521 2,990 23,502 59,270 7,922 381 753

Pre-6 (Pre-F) 14,238 4,871 29,754 6,153 2,989 18,179 60,551 12,207 413 843

Post-6 (Post-F) 14,238 4,864 29,754 6,190 2,990 18,784 59,369 12,907 378 724

ISO-NE INTERNAL

35

Annual Generation by Resource Type (GWH) Table - Effect of Relaxing Maine Interfaces (Post minus Pre)

Scenarios Resource Type

EE, DR, RTEG Other

Renewables Nuclear Hydro Solar Ties Gas Wind Oil Coal

1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 -1.7 -0.1

2 0.0 9.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.2 -16.2 0.0 -3.4 -0.4

3 0.0 14.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 19.1 -36.6 0.0 2.0 -0.9

4 0.0 19.7 0.0 -1.9 0.0 56.1 -76.9 0.6 -5.6 8.0

5 0.0 37.9 0.0 -22.0 0.0 502.7 -455.7 5.5 -14.0 -54.3

5NB 0.0 44.2 0.0 -41.4 0.0 1,402.4 -1,299.6 2.3 -19.1 -88.7

6 0.0 -6.5 0.0 36.7 0.3 605.0 -1,182.1 699.9 -34.3 -118.9

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX III

Air Emissions Metrics

36

ISO-NE INTERNAL

CO2 Systemwide Emission Reductions due to ME Interface Upgrades (k short ton**) Changes (%) in emissions are small relative to systemwide emissions

37

Scenarios

CO2 Emissions (kton) CO2 Reduction

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

kton % of

32,000 kton


31,775 31,775 1 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 31,483 31,485 -3 0


31,047 31,054 -7 0


30,633 30,631 3 0

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 29,462 29,246 216 1


28,190 27,572 618 2


28,250 27,549 701 2

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding *Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15 **1 kton = 1,000 short ton = 2,000,000 lb

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Scenarios

SO2 Emissions (ton) SO2 Reduction

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

ton % of 3,200

ton


3,054 3,050 4 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 3,020 3,014 7 0


3,010 3,016 -6 0


2,923 2,901 22 1



2,817 2,614 203 6


2,801 2,536 264 8

SO2 Systemwide Emission Reductions due to ME Interface Upgrades (short ton**) Changes (%) in emissions are small relative to systemwide emissions

38

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding *Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15 **1 short ton = 2,000 lb

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Scenarios

NOX Emissions (ton) NOX Reduction

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

ton % of 9,300

ton


9,284 9,283 1 0

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 9,199 9,199 -1 0


9,121 9,132 -11 0


8,921 8,935 -14 0



8,314 8,108 205 2


8,346 8,037 309 3

NOX Systemwide Emission Reductions due to ME Interface Upgrades (short ton**) Changes (%) in emissions are small relative to systemwide emissions

39

Note: Values may not sum to total due to rounding *Outside Maine, assumed only "existing wind" as of 4/1/15 **1 short ton = 2,000 lb

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX IV

Bottled-in Energy

40

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Bottled-In Energy (GWh) BHE - RSP Subarea

41

Scenarios



NB Import ($10 Threshold Price)

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 9 0

3 0 0 0 0 19 0

4 0 0 0 0 57 0

5 2 0 5 4 702 194

5NB 0 0 1 0 2,435 1,028

6 1,529 836 250 171 2,174 1,560


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Bottled-In Energy (GWh) ME - RSP Subarea

42

Scenarios



Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

1 14 14 0 0

2 14 14 0 0

3 15 15 0 0

4 92 91 0 0

5 97 92 17 12

5NB 92 89 13 12

6 1,641 941 362 270


ISO-NE INTERNAL

Bottled-In Energy (GWh) SME - RSP Subarea

43

Scenarios



Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0

5NB 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0


ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX V

Interface Flow Metrics • Historical • Draft Study Results

44

ISO-NE INTERNAL

45

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) Orrington South (1,325 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-E

Post-E

Interface: Orrington South – Existing Wind Duration Curve

46

Time

As export limit increases (with Existing Wind [1]), Orrington South becomes less constrained Pre-Existing: Orrington South constrained 1% of time Post-Existing: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Orrington South – Less Wind Duration Curve

47

Time

As export limit increases (with Less Wind [2]), Orrington South becomes less constrained Pre-Less: Orrington South constrained 6% of time Post-Less: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-P

Post-P

Interface: Orrington South – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

48

Time

As export limit increases (with Proposed Wind [3]), Orrington South becomes less constrained Pre-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 8% of time Post-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Orrington South – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

49

Time

As export limit increases (with Basecase Wind [4]), Orrington South becomes less constrained Pre-Basecase: Orrington South constrained 13% of time Post-Basecase: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Orrington South – More Wind Duration Curve

50

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind [5]), Orrington South becomes more constrained Pre-More: Orrington South constrained 43% of time Post-More: Orrington South constrained 19% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Orrington South – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

51

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind and 1,000 MW of available New Brunswick import 24x7 [5NB]), Orrington South becomes more constrained Pre-More-NB: Orrington South constrained 83% of time Post-More-NB: Orrington South constrained 57% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-F

Post-F

Interface: Orrington South – Future Wind Duration Curve

52

As export limit increases (with Future Wind [6]), Orrington South becomes more constrained Pre-F: Orrington South constrained 69% of time Post-F: Orrington South constrained 52% of time

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

53

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) Surowiec South (1,500 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-E

Post-E

Interface: Surowiec South – Existing Wind Duration Curve

54

No change in percent of time Surowiec South is constrained.

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Surowiec South – Less Wind Duration Curve

55

Time

No change in percent of time Surowiec South is constrained.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-P

Post-P

Interface: Surowiec South – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

56

Time

As export limit increases (with Proposed Wind [3]), Surowiec South becomes less constrained Pre-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 1% of time Post-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Surowiec South – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

57

As export limit increases (with Basecase Wind [4]), Surowiec South becomes less constrained Pre-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 4% of time Post-Proposed: Orrington South constrained 0% of time

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Surowiec South – More Wind Duration Curve

58

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind [5]), Surowiec South becomes less constrained Pre-More: Surowiec South constrained 11% of time Post-More: Surowiec South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Interface: Surowiec South – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

59

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind and 1,000 MW of available New Brunswick import 24x7 [5NB]), Surowiec South has increased and unconstrained interface flow at 2,100 MW limit Pre-More-NB: Surowiec South constrained 12% of time Post-More-NB: Surowiec South constrained 0% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-F

Post-F

Interface: Surowiec South – Future Wind Duration Curve

60

As export limit increases (with Future Wind [6]), Surowiec South has increased and unconstrained interface flow at 2,100 MW limit Pre-F: Surowiec South constrained 11% of time Post-F: Surowiec South constrained 0% of time

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

61

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) Maine – New Hampshire (1,900 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-E

Post-E

Interface: ME-NH – Existing Wind Duration Curve

62

No change in percent of time Maine – New Hampshire is constrained.

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-Less

Post-Less

Interface: ME-NH – Less Wind Duration Curve

63

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-P

Post-P

Interface: ME-NH – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

64

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-Base

Post-Base

Interface: ME-NH – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

65


Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-More

Post-More

Interface: ME-NH – More Wind Duration Curve

66

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind [5]), ME-NH is has increased flow but is not constrained at 2,300 MW limit.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-More-NB

Post-More-NB

Interface: ME-NH – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

67

Time

As export limit increases (with More Wind and 1,000 MW of available New Brunswick import 24x7 [5NB]), ME-NH is has increased flow but is not constrained at 2,300 MW limit.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-F

Post-F

Interface: ME-NH – Future Wind Duration Curve

68

As export limit increases (with Future Wind [6]), ME-NH is has increased flow but is not constrained at 2,300 MW limit.

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

69

2015 Historical Interface Flow (MW) North – South (2,675 MW limit)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-E

Post-E

Interface: North-South – Existing Wind Duration Curve

70

No change in percent of time (0%) North – South is constrained.

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-Less

Post-Less

Interface: North-South – Less Wind Duration Curve

71

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-P

Post-P

Interface: North-South – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

72

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-Base

Post-Base

Interface: North-South – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

73

As the Maine corridor export limit increases (with Basecase Wind [4]), the North-South interfaces becomes more constrained at 2,675 MW limit. Pre-Base: North- South constrained 2% of time Post-Base: North- South constrained 3% of time

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-More

Post-More

Interface: North-South – More Wind Duration Curve

74

Time

As the Maine corridor export limit increases (with More Wind [5]), the North-South interfaces becomes more constrained at 2,675 MW limit. Pre-More: North- South constrained 3% of time Post-More: North- South constrained 9% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-More-NB

Post-More-NB

Interface: North-South – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

75

Time

As the Maine corridor export limit increases (with More Wind and 1,000 MW of available New Brunswick import 24x7 [5NB]), the North-South interfaces becomes more constrained at 2,675 MW limit. Pre-More: North- South constrained 4% of time Post-More: North- South constrained 13% of time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Inte

rfac

e F

low

(M

Wh

)

Pre-F

Post-F

Interface: North-South – Future Wind Duration Curve

76

As the Maine corridor export limit increases (with Future Wind [6]), the North-South interfaces becomes more constrained at 2,675 MW limit. Pre-More: North- South constrained 6% of time Post-More: North- South constrained 17% of time

Time

ISO-NE INTERNAL

ISO-NE CONFIDENTIAL

ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX VI

LMP Metrics

77

ISO-NE INTERNAL

78

Summary LMP Metrics

• LMP duration curves allow the effect of the three classes of study resources to be seen – At $0/MWh wind-on-wind competition spills wind – At $5/MWh hydro is spilled – At $10/MWh imports are curtailed

ISO-NE INTERNAL

43.50

44.00

44.50

45.00

45.50

46.00

46.50

47.00

47.50

48.00

LMP

($

/MW

h)

Pre-Upgrades

Post-Upgrades

79

New England LMP – weighted by load ($/MWh) Graph

ISO-NE INTERNAL

80

New England LMP – weighted by load ($/MWh) Table

Scenarios LMP ($/MWh)

Pre-Upgrades Post-Upgrades


47.69 47.69

2 RENEW Sensitivity 1 (Less Wind) * 47.47 47.47


47.20 47.20


47.12 47.11

5 RENEW Sensitivity 2 (More Wind)* 46.58 46.31

5NB


45.92 45.37

6 All Future Queue Wind in New England Wind (as of 4/1/15)

45.60 45.06


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – Existing Wind Duration Curve

81

Time

New England LMP unaffected by increased Maine interface limits

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – Less Wind Duration Curve

82

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

83

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

84

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – More Wind Duration Curve

85

Time

2,2510 MW of New England wind nameplate [5] and unconstrained energy lowers LMPs

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

86

Time

2,2510 MW of New England wind nameplate [5NB], available New Brunswick imports of 1,000 MW 24/7, and unconstrained energy lowers LMPs

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: New England – Future Wind Duration Curve

87

Time

4,405 MW of New England wind nameplate [6] and unconstrained energy lowers LMPs

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – Existing Wind Duration Curve

88

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – Less Wind Duration Curve

89

Time

Imports set LMP at $10

As Maine corridor export limit increases (with Less Wind [2]), Orrington South becomes less constrained (from 6% to 0%). Imports ($10 threshold price) and >$10 resources are not constrained by Orrington South.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

90

Time


As Maine corridor export limit increases (with Proposed Wind [3]), Orrington South becomes less constrained (from 8% to 0%). Imports ($10 threshold price) and >$10 resources are not constrained by Orrington South.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

91

Time


As Maine corridor export limit increases (with Basecase Wind [4]), Orrington South becomes less constrained (from 13% to 0%). Imports ($10 threshold price) and >$10 resources are not constrained by Orrington South.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – More Wind Duration Curve

92

Time


As Maine corridor export limit increases (with More Wind [5]), Orrington South becomes less constrained (from 43% to 19%). Imports ($10 threshold price) and >$10 resources are not constrained by Orrington South.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

93

Time


As Maine corridor export limit increases (with More Wind and available NB at 1000 MW 24x7 [5NB]), Orrington South becomes less constrained (from 83% to 57%). Imports ($10 threshold price) and >$10 resources are not constrained by Orrington South.

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: BHE – Future Wind Duration Curve

94

Time

Wind-on-wind competition at $0 LMP


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – Existing Wind Duration Curve

95

Time

ME RSP subarea LMP unaffected by increased Maine interface limits

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – Less Wind Duration Curve

96

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

97

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

98

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – More Wind Duration Curve

99

Time

Previously constrained areas (lower) LMP rise to unconstrained New England-wide LMP (higher)

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

100

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: ME – Future Wind Duration Curve

101

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – Existing Wind Duration Curve

102

Time

SME RSP subarea LMP unaffected by increased Maine interface limits

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – Less Wind Duration Curve

103

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – Proposed Wind Duration Curve

104

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – Basecase Wind Duration Curve

105

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – More Wind Duration Curve

106

Time

Unconstrained energy lowers LMPs

ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – More Wind with NB at 1000 MW Duration Curve

107

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL

LMP: SME – Future Wind Duration Curve

108

Time


ISO-NE INTERNAL ISO-NE PUBLIC

APPENDIX VII Modeling Assumptions

109

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Base Economic Evaluation Model

• System conditions consistent with FCA 9 (2018 / 2019) timeframe – Resources – Transmission capability – Demand

• Other economic assumptions – Fuel costs – Generator availability

110

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Load: New England Peak Load Forecast Effect of Behind-the-Meter PV and Passive DR

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

31,000

32,000

33,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Sum

me

r P

eak

Lo

ad (

MW

)

Summer 50/50 Peak Loads

CELT/Gross Gross - PV Gross - PV - Passive DR

111

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Fuel Price Forecast: EIA’s 2015 AEO Base

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.002

01

5

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

Fue

l C

ost

(2

01

3 $

/MB

tu)

2015 Annual Energy Outlook Reference New England Fuel Prices

Coal Natural Gas Distillate Fuel Oil

Residual Fuel Oil Biomass Nuclear

112

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Overview

• Resources include

– Cleared in Forward Capacity Auction #9

– 2015 CELT resources

– Other energy only resources

– Wind in each study are specified by the economic study request

• Wind resource production modeled based on 2012 NREL data

• Demand resources

– Energy efficiency (EE) and photovoltaic (PV) – including forecasts

– Active demand resources (DR)

– Hourly profile based on 2006 weather (consistent with wind and PV data)

113

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Overview (Cont.)

• Dispatch threshold price 1) Wind ($0/MWh) 2) Hydro ($5/MWh) 3) Imports ($10/MWh) *Note: Production cost is zero for these resources. An LMP below the

threshold price will result in a resource self curtailing.

• Resources modeled as hourly profiles – EE, DR, RTEG – PV, wind, – Hydro – Imports

• Wind profiles based on 2012 NREL data – Capacity factors range is from 31% to 41%

114

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Thermal Units

• Points of interconnection for resources based on ISO-NE TPL case*

• Existing thermal units – Simulation study production cost parameters: Heat rate curve, Start-up cost,

No-load cost and etc. – Primary and secondary fuel definition are based on 2015 CELT

• Operational limits – Minimum up time, Minimum down time and Start up time – Ramp rate limits

• Energy limits: assume no energy limits

• Future thermal units – Production cost parameters based on: unit type, technology and rating

*Source: NERC TPL Study 2021 Summer Peak Case (https://smd.iso-ne.com/operations-services/ceii/pac/2015/08/final_nerc_tpl_study_2021_summer_peak_case.zip)

115

https://smd.iso-ne.com/operations-services/ceii/pac/2015/08/final_nerc_tpl_study_2021_summer_peak_case.zip





ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Thermal Units (Cont.)

• Combined cycle units – Individual machines from a combined cycle plant are modeled as a

single generator at one of the machine’s buses

• Outages – Thermal units derated to reflect the forced outages using Equivalent

Forced Outage Rate (EFOR) – Planned maintenance schedule will be developed and held constant

across cases

116

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Hydro Units

• Hydro units modeled using – Hourly energy generation profiles – Peak shaving bias – Used in previous economic studies

• Hydro units are assumed to have no maintenance outage

117

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Pumped Storage Units

• Modeled in peak shaving mode – Pumping during off-peak hours – Generating during on-peak hours

• Pumped storage physical parameters – Minimum pond size – Maximum pond size – Plant capacity factor – Based on assumptions used in previous studies

118

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Photovoltaic

• 2015 PV Forecast used for simulation year 2021

• Represented by a time stamped, chronological hourly solar PV profile

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a simulated solar PV dataset based on 2006 weather – New England specific – Profiles by RSP area available

• Consistent with methodology used for wind profile

119

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Demand Resources

• Active DR, EE and RTEG are modeled explicitly – Hourly profile for each category of demand side resource – FCA amounts used through capacity commitment periods

• Forecasts – The latest EE forecast through the year 2024 is reflected – Active DR and RTEG are held constant for years beyond capacity

commitment period (same as other FCM resources)

120

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Resource Assumptions Demand Resources (Cont.)

• Hourly profiles are used to explicitly reflect energy efficiency (EE), active demand resources (DR) and real-time emergency generation (RTEG)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

be

r

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

be

r

De

cem

be

r

Tota

l De

man

d R

esp

on

se A

dju

stm

en

ts(M

W)

Effect of All DR Programs on Hourly LoadsISO New England

“Passive” EE

Real Time Emergency Generation

“Active” DR

121

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Operating Reserve Modeling

• Operating reserve requirement is determined in real time – Based on the first and second largest system contingencies – Resource profiles (hydro / wind / interchange etc) excluded

• Current operating reserve requirements – 125% of the first contingency in ten minutes split between

• Ten-Minute Spinning Reserve (TMSR) = 50% • Ten-Minute Non-Spinning Reserve (TMNSR) = 50%

– Thirty-Minute Operation Reserve (TMOR) not modeled • Assumed to be adequate • Provided by hydro, pumped storage and quick-start resources • Reasonable assumption except, possibly, at times of peak loads

122

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Network Modeling

• Modeling of transmission network – ISO-NE TPL case* – Detailed modeling in ISO-NE region only – Representation for neighboring systems

• Detailed network modeling not required for NY, NB and HQ • Base flows based on historical line flows

*Source: NERC TPL Study 2021 Summer Peak Case (https://smd.iso-ne.com/operations-services/ceii/pac/2015/08/final_nerc_tpl_study_2021_summer_peak_case.zip)

123






ISO-NE INTERNAL

Network Modeling (cont)

• Modeling of internal interface limits – The latest ISO-NE estimated internal interface limit values reflected

• Modeling of transmission line – All 230 kV and 345kV circuits ISO-NE region are monitored for thermal

overloads • Nearly 300 branches monitored for thermal overloads • Includes transformers that step up to 230 kV and above

– Generator step-up (GSU) transformers are excluded • Ensure a generating plant output is not limited by GSU modeling

• Monitoring of transmission line – 115 kV and above lines in areas of concern as appropriate

• Maine for – Strategic Transmission Analysis – Wind Integration study – Keene Road study

• SEMA / RI for off-shore wind study

124

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling

Modeling of Imports/Exports

ISO -NE External Interface • Hourly imports and exports over the

following external interconnections are modeled based on average 2012, 2013 and 2014 historical interchange values* – New York AC – NNC – Cross Sound Cable – Highgate – HQ Phase II

• New Brunswick modeled as historical monthly maximum imports from 2013 and 2014

*The same approach used in previous economic studies for representing import/export assumptions

125

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling New England to New York - AC Interface

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flo

w (

MW

)

Average Interchange - New York BorderAveraged Diurnal Profiles: 2012 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Average

AC

Note: positive values represent imports; negative values represent exports.

126

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling New England to New York - NNC Interface

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150


Flo

w (

MW

)

Average Interchange - NNCAveraged Diurnal Profiles: 2012 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Average


127

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling New England to New York – Cross Sound Cable

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100


Flo

w (

MW

)

Average Interchange - Cross Sound Cable Averaged Diurnal Profiles: 2012 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Average


128

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling Quebec to New England: Highgate

0

50

100

150

200

250


Flo

w (

MW

)

Average Interchange - HighgateAveraged Diurnal Profiles: 2012 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Average


129

ISO-NE INTERNAL

Imports and Exports Modeling Quebec to New England: HQ Phase II

0

500

1000

1500

2000


Flo

w (

MW

)

Average Interchange - HQ Phase IIAveraged Diurnal Profiles: 2012 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Average


130

ISO-NE INTERNAL

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800


Flo

w (

MW

)

Interchange - New BrunswickDiurnal Profile Showing Max Import of 2013 - 2014

2012 2013 2014 Max Import (2013/2014)

Imports and Exports Modeling New Brunswick to New England

Maximum Import


131

ISO-NE INTERNAL

132

1 Energy Markets and Policy Group • Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Department

Wind Turbine Impacts On Residential Property Values

Ben Hoen Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

AWEA Northeast Summit

July 20, 2016


Four Major US Studies Were Released Since 2009

Large Scale US Studies Investigating Property

Value Impacts Near Operating Turbines

Study Authors Date

US Wide Study LBNL December 2009

US Wide Study LBNL August 2013

RI Based Study U of RI December 2013

MA Based Study UConn/LBNL January 2014


US Based Study #1: LBNL 2009

Summary

•7,489 sales w/in 10 miles of 11 facilities

•125 post-construction sales within 1 mile

•Rural settings with large (50+ turbines) wind

facilities


US Wide Study #2: LBNL 2013

Summary

•51,276 total sales, 9 states, 67 facilities


•Rural settings, large (50+ turbines) facilities


RI Based Study: URI 2013

Summary

•48,554 total sales, 10 facilities


•Mostly urban settings, small facilities


MA Based Study: UConn/LBNL 2014

Summary

•312,677 total sales, 26 facilities

•1,503 post-construction sales w/in 1 mile

•Urban settings, mostly small facilities

•First study to test wind turbine and other

environmental amenities/disamenities

together

Received the Marc Louargand Award for the

Best Research Paper by a Practicing Real

Estate Professional presented at the 2014

ARES Annual Meeting


MA Based Study Results We Compared Impacts Across Amenities and Disamenities

Although the study found the effects from a variety of negative features

…and positive features…the study found no net effects due to the

arrival of turbines”. (p. 1)


Four Large Scale US Studies = Four Distinct Research Efforts

But The Same Results

No Evidence of Property

Value Impacts of Operating

Turbines 2009 LBNL US

Study

2013 LBNL US

Study

UConn/LBNL MA

Study

URI RI Study

Combined almost 2,500 transactions

within 1 mile of operating turbines


Why Has Consistent Evidence Of Impacts Failed To Emerge In US?


School District Revenue Is Significant

Estimated effect of wind farm on

annual school district budget

equates to a present value of:

$60-80 Thousand per MW!

$6-8 Million for 100 MW!


Total Economic Effects Can Be Very Large

Estimated the 23 largest wind

facilities in Illinois equates to a

present value of:

$0.9 Million per MW!

$90 Million for 100 MW!


Wind Counties Can Have Lower Taxes And Higher School Quality

“…property tax rates have fallen

and public school quality has

improved in those counties where

wind farms have been built.”

(p. 800)

Kahn (2013): Statistical analysis of West

Texas county tax rates, school expenditures

and teacher-student ratios


Multiple Surveys Have Found High Levels Of Support Near Turbines


Buyers Could Be Sorting Themselves Into Supporters And Objectors

When consumers are

mobile, over time they

will sort themselves

such that those living

in a community with

become more

supportive of that

community over time.

Tiebout, 1956


This Theory Is Supported By Results From 2016 Survey Of 1700 Residents Near Turbines

10% 21%

Moved In After

Construction Moved In Before

Construction

59% 52%

Homes

within

1 mile

of a

turbine

n=500

Preliminary

LBNL Results

Do Not Cite


Overall Conclusions

• Consistent property value impacts have failed to emerge near turbines in US

• Reasons for this include: – Significant compensation for schools and local

economies

– Relatively high levels of support for turbines

– Sorting over time to more supportive communities

• As turbines get quieter, if compensation schemes are consistently applied, and if the community is regularly involved in the development process adverse effects are likely to continue to be elusive.

LBNL Survey Results Will Shed More Light On Levels Of

Support, Opposition & Annoyance Near US Turbines


Thank You & Questions?

Ben Hoen

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

845-758-1896

[email protected]

This work was supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy (Wind and Water Power Technologies Office) of the

U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH1123.


References (Not Including Slide 79)

• Atkinson-Palombo, C. and Hoen, B. (2014) Impacts of Wind Turbine Proximity on Property Values in Massachusetts. A Joint Report of University of Connecticut and Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory. Prepared for Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MACEC), Boston, MA. January 8, 2014. 48 pages.

• Edward and Gail Kenney v. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), (2012) Ontario Assessment Review Board (ARB). File No: WR 113994.

• Elizabeth L. Anderson v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Falmouth (2013) Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (MAATB). August 27, 2013. File No: F314689 (2011) and

F316333 (2012).

• Gibbons, S. (2014) Gone with the Wind: Valuing the Visual Impacts of Wind Turbines through House Prices. London School of Economics and Spatial Economics Research Centre. Prepared

for, London, United Kingdom. April 2014. 52 pages. SERC Discussion Paper 159.

• Heintzelman, M. D. and Tuttle, C. (2012) Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities. Land Economics. August (88): 571-588.

• Hinman, J. L. (2010) Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois. Thesis Prepared for Masters Degree in Applied

Economics. Illinois State University, Normal. May, 2010. 143 pages.

• Hoen, B., Brown, J. P., Jackson, T., Wiser, R., Thayer, M. and Cappers, P. (2013) A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the

United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. July 2013. 59 pages. LBNL-6362E.

• Hoen, B., Brown, J. P., Jackson, T., Wiser, R., Thayer, M. and Cappers, P. (2014) Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Us Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values. Journal

of Real Estate Finance and Economics Forthcoming.

• Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M. and Sethi, G. (2009) The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. December, 2009. 146 pages. LBNL-2829E.

• Hoen, B., Wiser, R., Cappers, P., Thayer, M. and Sethi, G. (2011) Wind Energy Facilities and Residential Properties: The Effect of Proximity and View on Sales Prices. Journal of Real Estate

Research. 33(3): 279-316.

• Jensen, C. U., Panduro, T. E. and Lundhede, T. H. (2014) The Vindication of Don Quixote: The Impact of Noise and Visual Pollution from Wind Turbines. Land Economics. 90(4): 668-682.

• Kahn, M. E. (2013) Local Non-Market Quality of Life Dynamics in New Wind Farms Communities. Energy Policy. 59(0): 800-807.

• Knab, J. (2011) Project Discussion: High Sheldon Wind Farm. Presented at Wind Power as a Neighbor: Experience with Techniques for Mitigating Public Impacts, New England Wind Energy

Education Project (NEWEEP) Webinar. December 7, 2011

• Lang, C. and Opaluch, J. J. (2013) Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,

Kingston, RI. October 18, 2013. 35 pages.

• Loomis, D. and Aldeman, M. (2011) Wind Farm Implications for School District Revenue. Prepared for Illinois State University's Center for Renewable Energy,, Normal, IL. July 2011. 48 pages.

• Loomis, D., Hayden, J. and Noll, S. (2012) Economic Impact of Wind Energy Development in Illinois. Prepared for Illinois State University's Center for Renewable Energy,, Normal, IL. June

2012. 36 pages.

• Sims, S. and Dent, P. (2007) Property Stigma: Wind Farms Are Just the Latest Fashion. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. 25(6): 626-651.

• Sims, S., Dent, P. and Oskrochi, G. R. (2008) Modeling the Impact of Wind Farms on House Prices in the Uk. International Journal of Strategic Property Management. 12(4): 251-269.

• Slattery, M. C., Johnson, B. L., Swofford, J. A. and Pasqualetti, M. J. (2012) The Predominance of Economic Development in the Support for Large-Scale Wind Farms in the U.S. Great Plains.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 16(6): 3690-3701.

• Sunak, Y. and Madlener, R. (2013) The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values: A Geographically Weighted Hedonic Pricing Model. Prepared for Institute for Future Energy Consumer

Needs and Behavior (ACN), RWTH Aachen University. May, 2012 (revised March 2013). 27 pages. FCN Working Paper No. 3/2012.

• Tiebout, C. M. (1956) A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy. 64(5): 416-424.

• Wisconsin Realtors Association, Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, John E. Morehouse, Sr. And Ervin E. Selik v. Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Granted

the WI PSC summary judgment. (2014) WI 3rd District Court of Appeals March 25, 2014. Cir. Ct. # 2012CV1203.

• Vyn, R. J. and McCullough, R. M. (2014) The Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Ontario: Does Public Perception Match Empirical Evidence? Canadian Journal of Agricultural

Economics. 62(3): 365-392.

Harry Benson, Senior, Director of Development, EverPower Maine LLC

EverPower Overview• EverPower was founded in 2002 by CEO, Jim Spencer and acquired by Terra Firma in 2009

• Since acquisition, Terra Firma has committed $660m of equity to its investment and the business has been transformed from a development-only player to an owner-operator of wind generation assets with the ambition of growing the business to be a scale player

• EverPower currently has 750+ MW of operational capacity and has a substantial pipeline of near and mid-term projects

• The organizational capabilities have been built to accommodate such growth and the business now has over 50 employees between its office in New York and its corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

• The company has a real time commercial operations center to manage the power contracts and delivery optimization.

• The company has expertise in development, project finance, wind resource analysis, construction management and operations

2

EverPower is a fast-growing, onshore wind developer that focuses on strategic project development and operation in California and the Northeast markets of the United States

63 114

512752

1,000

0 MW

200 MW

400 MW

600 MW

800 MW

1,000 MW

1,200 MW

1,400 MW

1,600 MW

1,800 MW

2,000 MW

2010 2011 2012 2014 NearTerm

Year End Installed Capacity (MW)Timeline Key Events

Installed Capacity

(MW)

2002 Everpower founded to compete in renewable

solar energy and wind development-

2009 First wind farm (Krayn) goes operational 63

2011 Howard Wind Farm (NY) goes operational 114

2012 Acquisition of Alta VI (Mustang Hills - 150 MW) Highland North, Twin Ridges and Patton go

operational512

2014+

Acquisition of Big Sky Wind Farm. EverPower is a premier owner and operator of

renewable generating assets, with over 2.3 GW of development assets

752+

OPERATING WIND FARMS

Source: EverPower management

Project State Status COD Capacity Ownership Asset History Technology

Highland PA Operating 2009 62.5 MW 100% Organic Development Nordex

Howard NY Operating 2011 51.3 MW 100% Organic Development RePower

Highland North PA Operating 2012 75.0 MW 100% Organic Development Nordex

Mustang Hills CA Operating 2012 150.0 MW 100% Acquisition – Operating Vestas

Patton PA Operating 2012 30.0 MW 100% Acquisition – Development Gamesa

Twin Ridges PA Operating 2012 139.4MW 100% Organic Development RePower

Howard Expansion NY Operating 2012 4.1 MW 100% Organic Development Repower

Big Sky IL Operating 2011 239.4 MW 100% Acquisition – Operating Suzlon

Proposed Bryant Mountain Wind Farm

Bryant MountainExisting Spruce Mountain Wind Farm

BRYANT MOUNTAIN WIND FARM

Source: EverPower management

Project Overview

Location Oxford County, Maine

Power Region NE ISO

Targeted Permitting, COD 2019 2020

Nameplate Capacity 40 MW

Wind Speed Class III A site

Location Bryant and Chamberlain Mtns.

Interconnection 115kV line to south

Turbine Viability Vestas, GE, Gamesa

Importance of Keeping Milton Expedited

• Zoning sends an important message

• Developer will not go forward under these circumstances

• This would be a clear signal from LUPC

EverPower Maine LLC

We strive to be a good neighbor in the communities in which we operate by working together with local stakeholders from early in the development process right on through the operational life of our wind farms. -EverPower

Economic Benefits-Muskie School Report 2006-2014

• More than $500 million was spent in Maine on wind power projects

• Construction of 18 projects (does not include Bryant) would

result in $1.28 billion in spending in Maine over 12 years

Source: Charles S. Colgan, Maine Center for Business and Economic Research, December, 2014 Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Construction and Operations in Maine, 2006-2018.

Project Benefits• Construction and Operation Benefits

– $104 million investment

– Capital expenditure of $80 million

– Estimated $13.1 million in construction wages (primary workers and secondary workers)

– Estimated $900,000 in annual wages operation

– Local spending during construction over $23 million

– Local spending during operation estimated to be $1.5 million annually

Source: Job and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) Model

Additional Economic Benefits

• Taxes and Community Benefits• Estimated annual taxes of more than $320,000• Work to keep the money local• Minimum of $48,000 annually in community benefit agreement for local

use• $40-50,000 annually to local fund to be administer by the community

– ATV or snowmobile club projects– Ball club equipment and uniforms or travel– Road improvements– Many, many, many other possibilities

• Exploring conservation opportunities in the area• Over $400,000 in annual payments out to over 28 local landowners

– Turbine payments, neighbor agreements– Upfront payments for easements and option payments– Spent locally

Environmental Benefits

• Contribution towards wind energy goals– 2000 MW by 2015

– 3000 MW by 2020 (300 MW Offshore)

• Project expected to result in annual displacement of:– 14 tons of NOx

– 29.1 tons of SOx

– 67,697.3 tons of CO2

Source: yourstory.com

Site Selection Process

• Economically viable/competitive

• Must be compatible with community values

• Permittable site


• Overall Economics of the project

– Competitive Business Environment- New England PPAs

– Cheap prices for electricity

• Evolution of Turbine Technology

• Long generator lead lines

• Blending with Hydro

Wind Resource

The wind resource of Bryant Mountain is competitive. It is in the range to warrant a Class IEC Class III wind turbine.

Site Turbine Selection Process

Wind Speed

TurbulenceShear

Turbine ClassFrom IEC 61400-1, Edition 2

m/s = mph

10 m/s = 22.4 mph8.5 m/s = 19 mph7.5 m/s = 16.8 mph6 m/s = 13.4 mph

300-400 W/m2 6.4-7.0 m/s


• Available Land

• Construction Cost

• Suitable Transmission

– Bryant Mountain is NE ISO queue #555 for the 115 line to the south.

– NE ISO says 2 years to study

– Jeff Fenn of SGC’s feasibility analysis, says yes it is.

Proximity to Residents

• Population Density and Setbacks-

– One residence within 4,000 feet

– Talking to everyone within one mile of the project

– We will comply with the 42 dBA Standard for DEP permit (Spruce Mtnwas 45dBA)

• One within 4000 feet, most outside of that.

• Turbine technology is improving in this area

– Shadow flicker assessment will be conducted for DEP permit

– Property values-

• Neighbor agreements if within a mile

• Ben Hoen studies

Site Selection Process- Permittable

• Outstanding and Significant Scenic Resources

• Habitat and Wildlife

• Location within Expedited

Conclusions

• Bryant Mountain Wind Farm is needed for Maine to meet its wind energy goals. Good sites are very far and few between. When you find a good site, it needs to be realized.

• Bryant Mountain satisfies the siting criteria for successful wind development

• We would like LUPC to maintain the current zoning so that we can:– Reach out to all local landowners and towns and determine if project

is compatible with the needs of the community– Develop appropriate community benefits packages the meet the

community’s needs– Conduct all wildlife and resource value studies to determine whether

there are site specific consideration that make development inappropriate

Conclusions

• If in two-three years, the site remains viable, we would submit an application to DEP

• There would be a complete and robust review process with opportunity for:

– Public input

– Agency input

That would ensure that the project is permitted only if the site is, in fact, appropriate for wind development.

Thank you!• Thanks to the Commissioners and Staff, local

governments, landowners for their time and effort on this matter

Harry Benson

EverPower Maine LLC

631 903-5189

[email protected]

www.everpower.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.everpower.com/

Substantive Review of Petition to Remove Milton Township from Expedited Permitting Area

Joy Prescott, Stantec Consulting

August 10, 2016

Milton Township

Project Context and Location1

Project Location

DEP Permitting Process2

Wind Power as Allowed Use, 12/31/15 Wind Power as Allowed Use, 8/9/16

Expedited Permitting Area: Wind Power is an Allowed Use

35% of LUPC allows wind power 27% of LUPC allows wind power

Review Process

Review by state agencies and third-party reviewers• Evaluate whether project meets standards

• LUPC must certify project meets standards

• Work with developer to address issues

Multiple points for public input• Developer holds 1+ public info meeting • Public can request public hearing• DEP holds 2 public meetings (if no hearing)• Written comments can be submitted to DEP

Site Law Standards for all Large Projects Additional Standards for Wind Projects

1. Project Description2. Title, Right, and Interest3. Financial Capacity4. Technical Capacity 5. Noise *6. Visual Quality *7. Wildlife, Wetlands, and Fisheries 8. Historic Resources9. Unusual Natural Areas10. Buffers11. Soils12. Stormwater13. Urban Impaired Streams 14. Basic Standards15. Groundwater16. Water Supply17. Wastewater18. Solid Waste19. Flooding20. Blasting21. Air Emissions22. Odors23. Water Vapor24. Sunlight25. Notices

26. Shadow Flicker27. Public Safety28. Tangible Benefits29. Decommissioning30. Visual Impact31. LUPC Certification32. Best Practical Mitigation

* Noise and Visual Impact are evaluated under both Site Law and wind-specific standards

DEP must evaluate 32 standards before issuing a permit for a wind project

Consistency with CLUP3

Location of Development

GOAL: Guide the location of new development in order to protect and conserve forest, recreational, plant or animal habitat and other natural resources, to ensure the compatibility of land uses with one another and to allow for a reasonable range of development opportunities important to the people of Maine, including property owners and residents of the unorganized and deorganized townships.

Milton is located on periphery of LUPC jurisdiction• Surrounded by 4 organized towns

• Most areas within 10 miles are in organized towns

LUPC Policies• “guide development to areas near existing towns and

communities”

• “energy facilities are best located in areas on the edge of the jurisdiction with good existing road access but low natural-resource values”

Economic Development

Wind is compatible with forest management• Provide value to forest landowners

• Provide benefits to Oxford County, including $320k+ /year in taxes, $48k+/ year for community benefits to the host community, and $50k/year to fund local projects.

LUPC Policies• “encourage forest … and other resource-based industries”

• “encourage economic development in those areas identified as most appropriate for future growth”

GOAL: Encourage economic development that is connected to local economies, utilizes services and infrastructure efficiently, is compatible with natural resources and surrounding uses, particularly natural resource-based uses, and does not diminish the jurisdiction’s principal values.

Energy Resources

Renewable energy provides benefits to Maine• Existing capacity built thru small-medium projects

• Resource-based economic development consistent with state energy policies

LUPC Policies• “support indigenous, renewable energy resources”

• “accommodate energy generation installations that are consistent with state energy policies”

• “new renewable energy projects displace … fossil fuels and carry benefits”

GOAL: Provide for the environmentally sound and socially beneficial utilization of indigenous energy resources where there are not overriding public values that require protection.

Scenic and Recreation

Resources located outside Milton• Limited recreational opportunities within Milton

• No lakes or ponds within Milton

• Nearest scenic resource in LUPC is in Albany

• Detailed survey of resources conducted as part of permit application to DEP

LUPC Policies• “encourage patterns of grown to minimize impacts on natural

values and scenic character”

• “identify and protect areas that possess scenic features and values of state or national significance”

GOAL: Conserve the natural resources that are fundamental to maintaining the recreational environment that enhances diverse, abundant recreational opportunities.

GOAL: Protect the high-value scenic resources of the jurisdiction by fitting proposed land usesharmoniously into the natural environment.

Wildlife

Few wildlife resources• No Critical Habitat (eagle, salmon, lynx)

• No rare or exemplary natural community or ecosystem

• No mapped Significant Vernal Pools

• No high elevation areas

• Potential impacts to wildlife habitat will be identified during on-site surveys

GOAL: Conserve and protect the aesthetic, ecological, recreational, scientific, cultural and economic values of wildlife, plant and fisheries resources.

Wildlife

Proximity to bat hibernaculum• Hibernaculum 2.5 miles from nearest turbine

• Species most at risk from turbine collision do not use hibernaculum

Low risk of fatality to bats from turbines

• Existing bat fatality is very low in Maine

• Curtailment significantly reduces mortality

GOAL: Conserve and protect the aesthetic, ecological, recreational, scientific, cultural and economic values of wildlife, plant and fisheries resources.

Ability to Meet State Goals3

Projects like Milton are key for Maine to meet its wind energy goals

930 930

2000

2700

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2015 2020

Currently Operating orUnder Construction

Wind Energy Goal

MW of wind power

Wildlife and Siting

Wildlife and Siting

Project meets recommendations from MAS report

1. The project is located in the expedited wind permitting area away from known and valuable wildlife resources.

2. Everpower is committed to minimizing and avoiding impacts to wildlife resources.

3. Milton does not include any high elevation sites (>2,700’), any modelled Bicknell’s Thrush habitat, or areas designated as Critical Summits.

4. Milton is not located within 2 miles of the coast.

Conclusion

• Milton is appropriate for wind power development

• Project would provide economic development for Milton and Oxford County

• Project must meet 32 standards before DEP can issue permit

Wind development should continue to be identified as an allowed use

in Milton Township

transmission analysis: wind integration study: maine and ... · wind projects have a lower output...

Documents